Selected quad for the lemma: death_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
death_n	write_v	year_n	yield_v	54	3	7.0286	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A20944	A defence of the Catholicke faith contained in the booke of the most mightie, and most gracious King Iames the first, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, defender of the faith. Against the answere of N. Coeffeteau, Doctor of Diuinitie, and vicar generall of the Dominican preaching friars. / Written in French, by Pierre Du Moulin, minister of the word of God in the church of Paris. Translated into English according to his first coppie, by himselfe reuiewed and corrected.; Defense de la foy catholique. Book 1-2. English	Du Moulin, Pierre, 1568-1658.; Sanford, John, 1564 or 5-1629.	1610 (1610)	STC 7322; ESTC S111072	293,192	506

vnto the 15. verse of the 21. chapter Seauen dayes after his arriuall he is taken and to auoyd the violence of the Iewes he appealeth vnto Caesar when he came to Rome he preached there two yeares Acts 28.30 and there suffered Martyrdome as we may easily gather out of the 2. Timothy Chapter 4. verse 6. and by the subscription of the Epistle From whence it appeareth that the Epistle to the Romanes could not be written aboue three yeares before his death and not to be too strict let vs admit that it might be 4. yeares let vs now shew that S. Peter had not beene at Rome when S. Paul wrote this Epistle for that is prooued by the fifteenth chapter of the said Epistle to the Romanes where Saint Paul saith that he is resolued to goe to Rome whereof he rendreth this reason to wit I study to set forth the Gospell not in those places where mention hath beene already made of Iesus Christ to the end faith he that I build not vpon another mans foundation He presupposeth then that neyther S. Peter nor any Apostle had till that time laid nay foundation in the Church of Rome otherwise S. Paul going thither soone after should haue built vpon anothers ground-worke The renowne and credite and the mutual conference and conuersation of the Christian strangers with the Romanes had sowen the Christian Religion at Rome but before S. Pauls comming thither there was not any forme of a Church gouerned S. Paul laid the first foundation as is manifest by the place alleadged This being thus gained let vs end the rest of the combat The Kings Maiesty of England hath aduisedly noted that the Apostle S. Paul did excommunicate the incestuous person of his owne authority the spirit of the Corinthians ioyning with his spirit without making or medling with S. Peters spirit Coeffeteau here answereth that by the spirit S. Paul meant not authority but knowledge and declaration of will as Beza expoundeth it I aunswere that this declaration of will was done by vertue of the power and authority which he had as he addeth in the wordes following In the name of our Lord Iesus and by his power so calleth he that power which Christ had giuen him and which hee denieth to haue receiued from any man Gal. 1. v. 1. and chap. 2. v. 6. n = * They which were the cheef brought nothing vnto it But saith Coeffe●eau it is not necessary at all times to expresse all the functions of the Church nor the Primacy of S. Peter it being sufficient to beleeue it Then say I if he omitted it in this place and neuer thelesse beleeued it you must then shew vs some other place wherehe confesseth that he beleeued it Coeffoteau goeth further and saith Coeff fol. 89. That in the Letters of the Councell of Ierusalem the decision was made by the authority of the whole Assembly without speaking of Peter Acts 15.23 because the Letters were sent in the name of all the company n = * The apostles and the Elders brethren to the brethren that are of the Gentils in Antiochia Besides it is sufficient that elsewhere S. Peter is called cheefe by the Oracle of truth and that Peter himselfe speaketh first To this I say that if in these dayes a Councell where the Pope were present should write Letters to decide a Controuersie it would be thought very strange if in those Letters there were no mention made of the Pope Againe we cannot finde that the Oracle of truth did euer giue vnto S. Peter any power or Iurisdiction ouer the other Apostles Furthermore in this Councell Peter spake as a man that gaue his aduise or iudgement but it was Iames that spake last and pronounced the finall decision as President in the action But among all the reasons alleadged by the King of great Britaine that is most witty and forcible which is drawne from the first chapter of the first to the Corinthes which hath not beene yet noted by any other S. Paul had founded the Church of Corinth and had laboured mightily but after his departure from them they fell to faction and partaking one saying I am of Paul another of Apollo and another of Peter Those that said they were of Paul had a desire rather to become his followers then Peters it appeareth then that S. Paul had not taught them to acknowledge S. Peter to be his Superior and to be the head of the vniuersall Church for if he had so taught them they would neuer haue resisted and withstood that his instruction Neyther is it possible that any man would oppose himselfe herein against S. Paul thinking in so doing to become his Disciple or that he would not beleeue him to the end he might become his follower This is not onely absurde but it is also impossible from this argument so aptly collected Coeffeteau being vnable to comprehend the force thereof is driuen to shifts and querkes cleane from the purpose To as little purpose is it when he saith that Caluine speaking of the Controuersie betweene Paul and Peter Coeff fol. 90. Gal. 2. did not inferre a Preference of S. Paul before S. Peter but onely an equalitie for his Maiestie doth not intend a preheminence of S. Paul aboue S. Peter in generall but onely in this particular action Forasmuch as iustly to reprehend is a thing more noble then to be reprehended and to teach better then to learne I also adde that it is very likely that if S. Peter had had his Cardinals about him or a guard of Swyssers and Light Horsemen See Crysostome vpon chap. 1. to the Galathians he would not haue suffered S. Paul to haue withstood him to his face But follow on the line and leauell of S. Pauls purpose 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and it will lead you directly to the truth that S. Pauls drift was to meete with and to preuent the mis-regard which some had of his Apostleship which some held to be of an inferior ranck because he was none of the twelue but came after them Against this opinion of theirs he iustly armeth himselfe and saith in the very beginning of his Epistle that he is an Apostle not of men nor by man but by Iesus Christ where he teacheth vs sufficiently that hee had no commission from S. Peter And chap. 2. verse 6. he saith that they that seemed to be in estimation added nothing vnto him He saith that the charge was diuided betweene him and Peter to him were the Gentiles committed euen as to Peter those of the circumcision that Iames Peter and Iohn who were accounted the Pillars gaue him the right hand of Fellowship that he withstood Peter to his face when he came to Antioch Petrum solum nominant sibi comparat quia primatum ipse accepit ad fundandam Ecclesiam se quoque pari modo electum vt primatum haberet in fundandis gentis um Ecclesijs and went not the right

Christians and the very fertilitie thereof so farre degenerated into a pitifull sterilitie as he must bee accursed that accounteth it blessed Nay when a certaine Woman blessed the belly that bare Christ and the breasts that gaue him sucke Luke 11.28 Nay rather saith he Blessed are those that heare the Word of God and keepe it Except then they could first prooue that Christ had resolued to blesse that tree of the Crosse wherevpon he was nayled they can neuer prooue that his touching it could giue it any vertue And put the case it bad a vertue of doing Miracles as Peters shadow had yet doeth it not follow that it is lawfull to worship it which Peter would neuer accept of Surely the Prophets that in so many places curse those that worship Images that haue eyes and see not that haue eares and heare not would much more haue cursed them that worship a piece of a sticke that hath not so much as any resemblance or representation of eyes or eares To this M. Coeffeteau opposeth not the commandement of God Coëff fol. 65. but the authority of Chrysostome in his Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse who saith The Crosse his picture ought to be worshipped In like manner Prudentius the Poet and Paulinus Bishop of Nola and Ambrose who speake of the worshipping of the Crosse that Iudas kisse or the touching of the executioners and the touch of the Crosse is not al one because the mouth of the one and the hands of the other were liuing mem-bers of those Reprobates that committed the most detestable crime in the world but the Crosse was a dead thing and a harmelesse instrument of our Sauiors death that this worship is not done to the wood but to him that was fastened thereunto and sanctified it by his touching of it again that the representation of the cheife mistery of our saluatiō doth make it venerable which cannot be said of the land of Canaan because it was no particular instrument of our saluation The Doctor is not willing to leaue his good custome of paying vs with falsehoods Answere For Chrysostomes Sermon of the adoration of the Crosse which saith that the Crosse the effigies thereof are to be worshipped is suppositious and not found in Greek among Chrysostomes works Gretseri notae in orationes de cruce pag. 601. Hanc orationem neque in Augustana bibliotheca reperimus neque aliunde nancisci potuimus Ioachimus Perionius hath set forth in Greeke and Latine what himselfe pleased but Gretser a Iesuit who hath very lately inserted it among other orations that speake of the Crosse saith that he hath made diligent search for the manuscripts of Chrysost in the Libraries at Bauaria and Ausburg and that the hath neither found it there nor any where else Coeffeteau addeth that Prudentius writing against Simmachus saith that the Christians bowed their knees before the Crosse to worship it and yet this is false He could not alleage the wordes but the verses of Prudentius are these Tunc ille Senatus Militiae vltricis titulum Christique verendum Nomen adorauit quod collucebat in armis Which sounds in English to this sense Then did the Senate graue adore The title of Christes name diuine Which the reuengefull Armie bore And did in glorious banner shine The meaning is that the Senate hauing seene a Romane banner which they called Labarum whervpon the name of Christ was written for an inscription in this forme ☧ did worship this title and the venerable name of Christ But of adoring the crosse he makes no mention He further saith that S. Ambrose in the Oration made vpon the death of Theodosius speaking of Helena that put one of the nayles of the Crosse in Constantines crown Sapienter Helena egit quae crucem in capite regum leuauit vt crux Christi in r●gibus adoretur saith that she did wisely in aduancing the Crosse aboue the heads of Kings that in Kings the Crosse of Christ might be worshipped Let vs here resolue that this Oration as also others of the third Tome be adiudged counterfeit by Erasmus a man of good iudgement in the reading of the Fathers And indeed it is not credible that S. Ambrose should speake so ridiculously as to * Illum qui sicut Scarabeus clamauit vt persecutori● s●is peccata donaret compare Christ Iesus crying on the Crosse to the beetle flie a base creature and that crieth not as the Author of this Oration doth yet beeing graunted to be true doth Coeffeteau still shew himselfe a falsifier both of the words of the sense of the sense for these words Vt crux Christi in regibus adoretur doe signifie that Kings being adored the crosse by that means might be adored whereby it is euident that he speakes of a ciuill adoration because he makes it one with that which is performed vnto Kings now the question is here of religious worship Secondly Coeffeteau doth curtaile this place with like falshood suppressing the words following which doe explane what is meant by the Crosse This is no arrogance saith he but piety when it hath reference to the redemption he speakes then of worshipping the redemption and not a woodden Crosse In like manner hath Coeffeteau dissembled the precedent words which are wonderfull plaine Helena adored the King Helena regem adorauit nō lignū vtique quia Gen tilis est hic error vanitas impiorum and not the wood for this is a heathenish error and a vanity of the vngodly But shee worshipped him that was hanged on the wood This licentious falsifying and clipping of the Fathers is horrible if our Doctor durst falsifie the Scripture with like liberty hee would questionlesse alleadge some passages therehence Concerning Paulinus who liued in the fifth age Crux enim pisius columna est generis humani In ipsa columna aedificata est domus eius Ego crucem dico non lignum sed passionem and al others that speake of honouring or reuerencing the Crosse yea or if there be any that speake of adoring it S. Ierome vpon the 95. Psalme giues vs a generall rule whereby to expound such places His Crosse saith he is the Pillar of mankind vpon this Pillar his house is built now by the Crosse I vnderstand not the wood but the passion The same Father vpon S. Matthew lib. 4. cap. 23. complaining that certaine women carried about them some wordes of the Gospell written in little rolls of parchment and superstitiously worshipped the Crosse Some odde huswiues among vs saith hee vse to doe this with little Gospells Hoc apud nos superstitiosae quaedā mulierculae factitant in paruulis Euangelijs in crucis ligno istiusmodi rebus quae habēt quidem zelum Dei sed non secundum scientiam and the wood of the Crosse such like things which haue the zeale of God but not according to knowledge What would he haue said if

weake in the mouth of a Iesuite who holdeth that a Pope Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 29 be he neuer so wicked and a destroyer of the Church cannot be deposed no not by a general Councell and yet there is greater apparant danger in this then in the former That which Bellarmine addeth seemeth to haue beene written by him being asleepe and is nothing else but a quippe to make men laugh He proueth that a faithfull people may free themselues from the yoake of a Prince that is an Infidell that is to say may rebell against him and that by the example of the beleeuing wife which by the iudgement of the Apostle 1. Cor. 7. is not bound to abide with an husband that is an Infidell when hee will not dwell with her Whereunto I answere first that Similitudes are no proofes Secondly this Similitude being rightly taken doth not hurt vs for as a beleeuing wife is not bound to follow her husband when he forsaketh her and wil no longer co-habite with her so I will freely confesse that subiects are not bound to acknowledge a King that abandoneth his subiects and will no longer be King ouer them but renounceth his Realme and this is all that may be drawne from this Comparison Thirdly this Similitude is aduantageous vnto vs for if we admit the Comparison betweene the condition of a wife and of subiects then will it definitiuely determine our Controuersie and make vs gain the cause For as while an husband that is an Infidell will abide with his beleeuing wife she may not forsake him nor shake off her yoake so while a King that is an Infidell will retayne his soueraignty ouer beleeuing subiects they may not abandone him nor rebell against him The wordes of the Apostle are directly to this purpose If any woman haue an vnbeleeuing husband and he consent to dwell with her let her not forsake him All that which Bellarmine addeth is nothing else but as his manner is suppositions without proofes We graunt him that Princes who against their promise doe warre against the true fayth deserue to be depriued of their Kingdome but wee denye that this power of depriuing them is in the Pope VVe must reserue that iudgement to God seeing it is he that hath established them and that as Tertullian sayth they are inferiour to GOD alone Tertul. ad Scapulam in Apolog. cap. 30. A quo sunt secundi post quem primi Cap. 30. Cum dixit Petro Amas me Pasce oues meas idem dixit caeteris As touching these wordes spoken to S. PETER Feed my sheepe to omit for the present that which S. AVSTIN sayth in his booke of the Christian combate that Iesus Christ saying to S. Peter Feede my lambes spake the same to the rest as all the auncients with one accord doe say that the power of binding and loosing was giuen to the Apostles and to the whole Church in the person of S. Peter to omit this because I will treat of it in his proper place I onely say that albeit this had beene spoken to the Pope yet might he not for all that chastise Princes with depriuation of their estates or by raising a commotion among his subiects or by imposing fines and amercements vpon his countreyes This is to enterprete the word Feede too licentiously we had neede of new Grammer for this new Diuinity for the word Feede which in times past signified to teach and to guide dooth now a dayes signifie to blast whole kingdomes with the lightning of excommunications to ouerthrow great Monarches and to sucke and draw out the very substance of the poore people Beare with our simplicity herein for so great an abuse in wordes maketh vs to feare a greater in the matter it selfe To speake barbarously were an euill somewhat tollerable were it not that Barbarismes doe sometymes passe into Heresies and incongruities in wordes into incongruity in fayth Thus the Bishop of Rome calleth himselfe the Pylot and Steer-man of S. Peters Shippe but he imployeth that barke to trafficke his owne gayne and S. Peters nets to fish for Princes Crownes and to entramell whole States and Common-weales His keyes now a dayes serue onely to open Cofers His power of loosing only to loose the bonds of fidelity through a mutinous piety and a factious Religion which maketh it self Iudge ouer the consciences of kings which euen hateth their Religion because it hateth their rule gouernment and maketh that to be a good subiect to be a good Christian are things that cannot subsist together Bellarmines reasons hauing beene very feeble the examples which he produceth in the Chapter following are lesse currant He sayeth that Osias king of Iuda was dryuen out of the Temple by the High Priest and depryued of his kingdome The text of Scripture is direct to the contrary It is said 2. King 15.2 that Osias began to raigne in the sixteenth yeare of his age and hee raigned fifty two yeates so that he liued threescore and eyght years whence it appeareth that he was King euen vntill his death In the fift verse Iotham his son during the time of his fathers separation because of his leprosie he is not called King but gouernor of his house And ver 7. the beginning of the raigne of Iotham is reckoned only from the death of Osias his father The example of Athalia driuen from the Kingdome by Iehoiada the high Priest is as little to the 2. King 11. purpose For wee speake here of lawfull Princes deposed and he brings vs an example of a woman th●t vsurped anothers Kingdome by force and tyranny in which case euery man is allowed to employ himselfe to expel the vsurper and to preserue the Kingdome to the lawfull King The example of S. Ambose Bishoppe of Millan who would not receiue the Emperour Theodosius to the communion by reason of that great slaughter which his souldiers at his commaundement committed at Thessalonica maketh expresly against the Bishop of Rome For would the Pope now a dayes indure that a Bishoppe of Millan or Colleyne should intrude himselfe to excommunicate Emperours and to declare them to be fallen from their Empire without his permission Did Ambrose this by the counsaile or commaundement of the Bishop of Rome And were it so that Ambrose had beene that the Pope now sayth himselfe to be where will Bellarmine finde that Ambrose did degrade the Emperour or that he dispensed with his subiects for the Oath of fidelity Let a man read his three and thirtieth Epistle and he shall see with how great humilty he submitteth himselfe to an Arrian Emperour so farre from preaching any reuolt of his subiects from him that indeede hee willingly offered to dye and to suffer persecution if such were the will of the Emperour As touching the law which Theodosius imposed vpon himselfe by the Counsell of S. Ambrose which was that from thence forward he would stay the execution of any sentence of death

vntil the thirtieth day I cannot see how this can serue to giue vnto the Pope power of deposing Princes For if Theodosius would not haue followed the counsell of Ambrose there had beene no harme done But this good Emperour did of his owne accord yeeld vnto it After him followeth Gregory the first at the end of whose Epistles is found a priuiledge graunted to the Abbey of S. Medard which hath this clause for the burthen of the Song If any King Prelate Iudge or secular person what soeuer shall violate the Decrees of this Apostolicall authority and of our commandement be he of what dignity or greatnes soeuer he may be let him be depriued of his honour I might say that this is onely an imprecation against Kings and not a Decree of deposition But we neede not busie our selues about the sense seeing that the Epistle is false It is a priuiledge indeed vnto which the name of Gregory is put to winne the greater credite and authority The falshood of it appeareth first in the Barbarisme of the style for men did neuer call neyther at Rome nor in Italy farmes or possessions by the name of Mansos It is a word which is found in the Chapter of Charles the great and of Lewes which sheweth that this priuiledge was first composed in France and not written at Rome Which thing also appeareth in this that he vseth these wordes Tusiacum Mortinetum fiscos regios To call the lands of the Kings Demaines Fiscos regios is a Barbarisme that may easily befall some French monke but at Rome this would not haue beene vnderstood and you espye the French vaine in these wordes very often repeated Dominus Medardus Monsieur S. Medard Adde hereunto that this priuiledge is absurd and vniust for it forbiddes to depose the Abbot of S. Medard howsoeuer attainted with crime vnlesse it be after the Popes pleasure known and after a Councel assembled wherein there shall bee found a dousen witnesses besides the accusers Now to breake this goodly priueledge is thought to bee a crime for which a King ought to loose his Kingdome The cheef poynt is that the humor of this Gregorie the first who called himselfe seruant of seruants doth very much disagree with these so arrogant terms which cut after the stile of an earthly Monarch For writing to Mauricius the Emperor in his third booke and sixt Epistle But I the vnworthy seruant of your goodnesse Ego autem indignus pietatis tuae seruus Ego vero haec dominis meis loquens quid sum nisi puluis vermis And a little after Now I speaking these things to you my Lords what am I but dust and a very worme And the King of great Britayne hath wisely obserued in his first booke that the Emperour Mauricius had commaunded this Gregory to publish a law which Gregory himselfe condemned as vniust and yet to obey his Master he published it I sayth he as one subiect to your commaundement haue sent these same lawes into diuers Countries and because they do not agree with God Almighty I haue by these my letters signified it to my Lords and Masters How well this Gregory knew to keepe his rancke and could not finde the way to draw this temporal sword which yet stucke fast in the scabbard For an vpshot of falshoods so at the end of this goodly priuiledge the subscriptions of the Bishops of Alexandria and Carthage who neuer knew the Abbey of S. Medard especially the Bishop of Alexandria who neuer saw Gregory and who beside that signeth his name very low among the thronge of ordinary witnesses albeit he neuer thought himselfe inferiour in any thing to the Bishop of Rome After all signeth King Theodoret as inferiour to all the Bishops After this Gregory wee are brought downe to Gregory the second the great puller downe of Images If we may beleeue Cedrenus and Zonaras great adorers of Images this Gregory went about to hinder the Italians from paying their tributes to Leo Isauricus who had demolished Images But Platina who hath most carefully searched out the story of Popes witnesseth the contrary and sayth in the life of this Gregory that vpon order giuen from the Emperour for the breaking downe of Images The people of Italy were so much moued Qua cohortatione adeo animati sunt Italiae populivt Paulum abfuerit quin sibi alium Imperatorē deligerent Quo minus a id fieret authoritate sua obstare Gregorius amicusest that it wanted but little but that they had chosen themselues another Emperour but Gregory employed his authority to hinder that matter Nay further he neuer for all that declared Leo fallen from the Empire he did not translate his Scepter to another he did not dispense with his subiects for their Oath of Alleageance And yet the Emperour at that time did onely hold a third part of Italy which was a very small portion of the Empire so that his tributes of Italy were vnto him of very little value As for Pope Zacharie when they report in the yeare 750 to haue taken from Childeriche the Kingdome of Fraunce to giue vnto Pipin and likewise Pope Leo the third whom men say to haue translated the Empire of the Greekes to the French by giuing the Empire to Charlemaine I could conuince all this of falshood and shew that the practise and custome of Popes is to giue vnto some one that thing which he cannot take from him Or after hauing incyted some one to inuade the possessions of his neighbour to vaunt afterward and to reproach him that what he got by rapine he now holdeth by his Holinesse liberality or as if in the Sacring of the Emperour because he hath put the Crowne on his head he should say that he hath giuen him the Empire as if in the sacring of a King he that hath inaugurated him by performing the Ceremony should bragge that he hath giuen him the Kingdome By this reason the Bishop of Ostias who hath had for a long time the right of consecrating the Pope should haue bin aboue the Popes and the Bishop of Millan should giue the Kingdome of Italy to the Emperour because from him he is to receiue a Crowne of Iron but this belongeth to another discourse neyther is the proofe of it necessary to this purpose For had these Bishops done much worse then this yet could not their example serue for a rule vnlesse it be shewed where and when God gaue them this power For is it credible that the Bishops of Rome could haue had in their hands this power neare eight hundred yeares together without enploying it or that they suffered this temporall sworde to hang rusting on a pinne without euer making vse of it vntill that after many ages this Zachary bethought himselfe of putting it to seruice in an action which the Church of Rome it selfe confesseth to bevniust Seeing that the Canon Alius before aleadged sayth that Childericke was not deposed for any